The Station.

Otago Witness, Issue 1382, 25 May 1878, Page 20

The Station.

T£E DUTY ON WOOL.

According to the new schedule of the ,"Wool Tariff Bill, aB agreed upon by the •Committee on Ways and Means, and which will in all probability pass the , United States Senate this session, Australian and. New Zealand wool is classified under the firat-olass (clothing, wool), and flibjeot to duty as follows :—: — :Wool of the first class, the value Whereof at the last port or place whence exported to the United States, excluding charges in said port, shall be over 16 cents or leu. per pound, aeall be 6 cents per - pound. ; Wools of the same class the value Whereof at the last port or place whence exported to the United States, excluding charges in said port, shall be over 16 cents or less per pound, shall be 6 cents per pound. Wools of the same class the value "whereof at the last port or place whence exported to the United States, excluding charges in said port, shall exceed 33 cents m pound, 12 cents per pound. • , It is difficult to understand in the face • of well-known facts, why American law makers should still insist 'upon keeping the duty on wool. In the first instance Australian and New Zealand wool, if admitted duty free in America, would not compete with wool raised in the United States, it being of a . decidedly different class, and used for very dis-similar purposes. Climate affects the growth of wool in as -< decided a manner as it does agricultural . products ; wool raised in warm climates is . «oft and fine, easily freed from grease by "ft simple washing process ; on the other .hand, wool raised in colder climates is coarser, and contains a kind of greasy gum ■ which closely adheres to the wool, and • from which it can only be freed by the application of powerful acids, which have 'the effect of almost destroying the fibre, and thereby greatly impairing its value lor manufacturing purposes. The Congress of the United States ieems not to be aware of these facts, or ;if aware of them, has chosen to utterly ''•ignore them in its recent deliberations on this important subject. 11 " It will not be denied that America •pends annually millions of dollars in "the 1 purchase of manufactured woollen ; cloths. Why is this 1- Is it because she l J»as 'not the machinery necessary with - whiohto manufacture? No. Half her milli are to-day idle which are supplied with the finest looms. ' Is it because of the price of labour 1 No. labour was never bo cheap in the United - 'Stated as it ia at the present time. ' ' Then why is it ? It is simply because heir manufacturers cannot obtain wool paying a high rate of duty, and make a reasonable profit on the capital invested. " We think if the law makers would pay alittle more attention to political economy, And less to figures, the country would be benefited. It. is a well-known fact that coloured oloths made of American wool will not retain their colours. The reason for this is because of the greasy gum before mentioned. Wool containing this gum will not take up the pigments in dye stuffs and permanently retain them, and if this grease is removed by the use of acids, the cloth which will then be turned out from the looms will have little strength, And consequently rank low as an article of commerce. What the manufacturers need is the removal, of the duty from off wool. They .will then be enabled to manufacture a fine 1 cloth at a lower figure than is now done in England,' and the Millions pf dollars . which are now sent abroad annually for the purchase of manufactured Woollen goods will be kept at home ; and, furthermore, such an action will have the 'effect of creating an, export trade in tiie , same class of goods which are now bought abroad. Will anyone doubt the benefit the country will receive from this ? Mr Willis, whose resolution is naw before Congress, seems to be about the only man in Congress who fully understands the subject, and he has our hearty wishes for success in his efforts to have the duty on wool removed.